SHREE SANCHASUMATHINATHBHAGWANRAJENDRASURI JAIN SHWETAMBER TRUST,MADURAI vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 606/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 July 2025AY 2017-2018Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the order passed by the CIT(E) rejecting the condonation application is not an appealable order before the Tribunal under Section 253 of the Act. Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee were rejected.

What were the facts?

The assessee's condonation application for filing Form No. 9A belatedly was rejected by the CIT(E). The assessee failed to produce proof of investment and failed to show reasonable cause for the delay. The assessee preferred an appeal against this order.

What were the issues?

Whether an order passed by the CIT(E) rejecting a condonation application under Section 119(2)(b) is appealable before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 119(2)(b),Section 11(5),Section 253

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE KAND SHRI PADMAVATHY S

Hearing: 31.07.2025Pronounced: 31.07.2025

आदेश/ O R D E R

PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) dated 25.12.2024, rejecting the assessee’s condonation application filed u/s.119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the :- 2 -: Act’). The CIT(E) had disposed off the assessee’s condonation application for filing Form No.9A belatedly by observing as under:- “6.1 Inspite of the opportunities given vide letters dt.159.09.2020, 22.10.2024 and 15.11.2024 the assessee has failed to produce the proof of investment of accumulated funds before the JAO and this office. As per material available on record, it cannot be ascertained as to whether the assessee has invested the accumulated amount fully as per modes prescribed u/s 11(5) of the Act. Further, the assessee has failed to prove it was prevented by reasonable cause from filing of applications in Form No.9A within the stipulated time.”

2.

When the case was posted on 30.07.2025, none was present on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, the case was adjourned to 31.07.2025. On 31.07.2025 also, there was no representation on behalf of the assessee. Hence, we proceed to dispose off the matter after hearing the Ld.DR.

3.

The Ld.DR submitted that this appeal is filed against the order of the CIT(E) rejecting assessee’s application u/s.119(2)(b) of the Act. The Ld.DR submitted the same is not an appealable order before the Tribunal u/s.253 of the Act.

4.

We have heard Ld.DR and perused the material on record. The appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order passed by the CIT(E) rejecting assessee’s application for condonation of :- 3 -: delay in filing Form No.9A u/s.119(2)(b) of the Act. The order passed by the CIT(E) is not an appealable order before the Tribunal u/s.253 of the Act. Hence, the grounds raised by the assessee is rejected. It is ordered accordingly.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 31st July, 2025 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 119(2)(b)

All 980 judgments and leading authorities on Section 119(2)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →